When christians use examples such as, you can't see air do you believe in that?

Question

Why does nobody ever talk about the motivation behind making something up?In this case religion. Why would a scientist make something up?I can see that maybe if he owned a big drug company then yes he could possibly make something up to enhance his profits, but science uses many theories and many scientist from all over the world to back up it's claims,he would get found out very quickly.
Religion on the other hand...men like power so therefore the motivation is massively strong to make things up to achieve this, heaven and hell just have to made up to force people to believe. this coupled with no evidence whatsoever of a god and how could anyone believe? So what does anyone think?

fire4chr…
i know that God has spoken to me personally, and i know for sure that he is real

Ok, what did he say, in which language did he say it in as well and how did he communicate this? If you say that this happened in your head then you are in medical terms 'insane' so please tell us all?

Beverly
"My claims of faith in God are backed up by other Christians claims of God"

You have said it all there! You believe because many people believe so it has to be true.Interesting piece of 'non-thought'


People keep saying there is NO proof there is a God, but to those who believe, there is proof. We have had individual experiences with God, felt His presence, experiences Him in our lives.

The things that you decide to attribute to god's power are things that happened anyway but you decided, with the good things, to delude yourself that they were because of god, whereas the same things happen to a non believer anyway! You wll not be able to see this however as want to think that god is helping you..

"Since most scientists do not believe in God, could they be trusted with proving evolution? They can not even agree among themselves about evolution. Here are some examples"

Yes of course not everyone agrees?And your point is?? My issue is the motivation behind god and religion is great.It seems these days that the motivation to believe now is more a 'saving face' one than actual belief! Just because we do not know how the earth was created or how we got to be here doen't mean w have to believe in an obvious man made religion! I am at peace with the fact that evolution seems the most likely theory or I will never know. I don't care whether I never know.Why be insecure about that? I would like to know but it doesn;t affect daily life does it?

prtalban…I do not believe someone can walk on water or feed 5000 people with a loaf of bread-simple as that. Do I need any more reasons not to believe the bible..

Answer 1

i know that God has spoken to me personally, and i know for sure that he is real

Answer 2

I for one do not believe that religion is made up but if you believe not then thats fine. I believe that we can put to much faith in science and our own "Human knowledge" because lets face it, no ones perfect. A scientist would not amke something up but all that they have discovered had been there before, since the big bang. They are not finding the answer to something, just what is already there. I as a christian do believe in things like the big bang and evoloution but that there is a guiding hand behind it.

There are millions of people aroung the world with religion. Do you really think that that amount of the population are insane, devoting their life to a loads of lies? No because maybe they have found something out that your scientists haven't. Religion is not an easy thing to follow and is not just followed to get to heaven or hell. What real power can you have over someone by making up a faith because each person follows their own faith in a way. It's not based in the bible or sermons at church but what God is telling you. If you disagree with the vicar telling you to jump over a cliff you don't jump over a cliff.

Religion is one method of trying to find the answers, science is another. Each solotuion thinks they have the answer and when they can't find the soloution in the end they say "Oh well, it's a mystery. We'll keep looking" To believe that either one is more knowledgable is ignorace of the other. To tell you the truth no matter how much of my faith I told you, you would not believe me and no matter how many questions like this you asked I'd still be christian. I have enough evidence myself to believe in God and the rewards are greater than I can explain.

As to scientists therories look at how different they are now to how there were in the past. Scientists dispute other findings and constantly change what they believe. Christianity has been stable though.

That's about all I have to say to your question, you've had some interesting answers though. Have a good day :)

Answer 3

History speaks for it self, do you find it hard to believe that Hitler was a leader of the Germans who wanted a superior race?

Or that Cleopatra was the Queen of Egypt?

If not then why is it so hard to believe that Jesus came to earth and was the son of the most high God?

After all, as with the other people from history there were hundreds that could verify that Jesus lived here on earth and preformed what the Bible said he did.

Some of the Roman leaders even mentioned his name in there writings and the Bible mentioned there’s as well.

Therefore, History will prove that Gods word is so.

So if you don’t believe that Jesus was here than how can you really be sure that all the rest of the people mentioned in history ever existed?

Science only proves what the bible says as well take the earth for a long time they thought it was flat and you would fall off the end if you went to far.

The Bible said it was a round sphere hanging on nothing so it knew what it took science hundred of years to find out.

There are many other thing that will go hand in hand in which science teaches that can be found in the Bible.

I am not trying to sway you one way or another but I am just pointing out some facts so you can make your own decision.

Answer 4

I agree absolutely that religion, on the whole, over the millenia has been more of a control system than any spiritual system of gaining understanding. On the contrary, ignorance of just about everything for the masses has been the mainstay of religions like Christianity and Islam. Since the invention of the printing press, and the much wider appearance of literacy the membership of such institutions has wained considerably. Try running a comparison between literacy and religious membership.

It is an interesting point that most of these institutions had some system of 'tithing', that is contributing a part of one's income to the 'church', usually around ten percent. Think about it, that has also and frequently been the approximate level of taxation by the 'King' or other secular 'authority'. Hmmm, so it should cost us twenty percent of our earnings to keep 'right' with this life ( King ) and the hereafter ( God ) ?

It is ironic that the origin of all Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is the same person, Abram of Ur, later re-named Abraham by his 'God'. Has anyone taken the trouble to investigate the 'ground' from which this person sprang ? The Sumerian belief systems were really very sophisticated, even by today's standards, it was thought that each person had his own, personal, 'God', rather more like our modern concept of a 'Guardian Angel'. When Abram left Ur, he wasn't 'breaking' with his cultural past, he was taking it with him.

The 'God' of Abraham was Abraham !

And thus follows all the rest, between these three you have almost half of the world's religious membership.

Answer 5

Do you believe the air you breathe is there or do you know it's there? Belief and knowing are the key issues here. Belief comes from belie. So, it takes faith to believe. Know comes from knowledge and that doesn't take faith. Faith is used on people when there is no knowledge to use or fall back on. Watch the wording and understand that wording so you don't trip and fall. This is your key to understanding what's going on and where people are really coming from. That goes for any religion and their bibles. We get hung up on the wrong issues because of how things are worded. It hides the true issue. Instead of looking at the arguments, consider what the words really mean , not what is being argued about. Hope I haven't added to the confusion. Peace and Love .

Answer 6

I read the whole question and I only have comments for the actual title. I see that as a very flawed "proof" of existence for God. I guess they don't know sight isn't our only sense. Does that mean blind people can't prove anything if only seeing is believing? There argument is as follows...

1. You can't see air.
2. You can't see God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

We have other ways to prove the existence of air. I don't see much intelligent coming from those that use that argument.

Answer 7

It took decades to get the Smithsonian to say that they had put over a dozen different dinosaurs to produce the Stegosaurus, and it only receive a few paragraphs in a science magazine.

Leeky put human hands and feet on Lucy, found her head several hundred feet from the body (several layers lower) modified the hip joints to make it look like she was trying to stand upright, and yet Lucy is still counted as a major find.

Carbon dating is based on the level of material present in 1965. The level changes and it made dating things unpredictable, but by fixing the level they made the results unreliable. A few years ago some one doing a dig in Mexico on what they thought was evidence of the first humans in the new world, brought in someone with the latest dating equipment. They were looking for a date of about 25000 years. but they got a date of over 100,000 which did not fit what they expected and so was useless.

Answer 8

As a Christian, I wouldn't use such an example. But then, I'm a high school physics teacher, with the required qualification (double major : education and science).

But I can understand the reasoning. If you can't see air, how do you know that there is air? You may say, "You can see its effects". But the Christians can use the same reasoning for God. You may say, "Without air, you cannot live. It is necessary for life". And, of course, you know that the Christian will reply, "Same goes for God. Without Him you cannot live for more that a microsecond, whether you recognize God or not. "

Fractional distillation of air? Father, Son and Holy Ghost !
Atmospheric conditions? Check out Sodom, Gomorrah, darkness at Jesus' crucifixion.

Answer 9

Most Christians do not oppose the discoveries of science. There are some that do, such as creationists, but they are in the minority.

Many of the Biblical stories which seem to contradict science are actually metaphor - stories to help people understand God's efferct on their lives. They were never meant to be taken as literal fact - unfortunately, they have been interpreted that way all too often.

Answer 10

Religion and believing in God are two different things. Religion, to me, are more culture-based beliefs. Belief, or faith in God, is a feeling that you know there's something bigger than you out there that helped create everything and makes you the person you are.

Answer 11

Exactly. Who really has a motive to lie to you? Why do people think science has a vested interest in destroying religion? The controversy did NOT begin with science. Copernicus, e.g., simply noticed in the course of his studies that it would really be much simpler to suppose - for the sake of calculation - that the earth revolved around the sun rather than vice-versa. He had no agenda to "destroy religion" - he depended on religious authorities, in fact, for his bread and butter, not to mention his life, as did all men of learning until relatively recently. But the Church pounced on him, because they saw that to challenge the traditional cosmology as implied in the Bible was to begin chipping away at the edifice of religious mythology, and thus their authority.

This is why Christianity has always stood at the forefront of The Reaction against every advance in knowledge. Today it's "Young Earth" and "Intelligent Design," and the lobby to hobble our public school education system by deliberately confusing science with mythology. When your institution is founded on fraud and falsehood, you're naturally nervous when people begin asking questions.

But some people, due to their religious brainwashing, would rather believe that scientists just want to destroy religion for kicks. Scientists have been "deceived by Satan" - it will be seen immediately how this argument is watertight, once you buy into the premise. The degree to which a scientist can demonstrate his arguments is just the degree to which Satan has deceived him. Once people begin thinking this way, they're lost. They can be convinced of anything from the notion that God is punishing the country because we've allowed gay people to live, to the notion that it's necessary to fly planes into buildings to destroy the infidel. They have completely relinquished their rational faculties, and as such have no means of independent judgment; they must simply believe whatever they're told by their chosen "Authority."

As for the remarks of certain other people on here - yes, it's true that scientists sometimes become dogmatic about a pet theory, and (consciously or unconsciously) "fudge" the data to make it jibe. But for religious people to bring this up as an attack on science/defense of religion is merely self-defeating hypocrisy. In fact, they're actually defending the scientific method! The whole POINT is that you don't allow a preconception to prejudice your observations, that every new scrap of data must necessarily alter the entire picture. Religion, meanwhile, begins with antecedently absurd assertions, insists that all argument to the contrary is not merely wrong, but "wicked," and then tries to force the universe into compliance. If some scientists have occasionally erred in the same way by allowing themselves to defend a given theory "for its own sake," as it were, that doesn't discount the essential validity of the scientific method - as religious people are tacitly admitting with this kind of argument.